Three defendants convicted of wire fraud in the purchase of 16 properties in Gary were clearly guilty of the crimes, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Friday threw out a restitution order against them and urged the district court in Hammond to consider fining Bank of America for “facilitating a massive fraud.”

“The bank was reckless,” Judge Richard Posner wrote in United States of America v. Minas Litos and Adrian and Daniela Tartareanu, 16-1384, -1385, 2248, 2249, 2330. The defendants were convicted of wire fraud, and the 7th Circuit affirmed those convictions, but reversed an order that they pay the bank restitution of $893,015, the amount it claimed was lost in the scheme.

The defendants were convicted on wire fraud charges filed in 2012 for a scheme in which home buyers were provided down payment kickbacks from the defendants after mortgages were secured on loan applications that provided false information. The defendants then walked away with the purchase price of the properties. But the 7th Circuit wrote Bank of America didn’t have clean hands, and there was little evidence that the bank would not have made the loans had it know the true source of the down payments — the defendants, not the buyers.

Editor’s note: This article has been corrected. In reversing a restitution order for Bank of America, the 7th Circuit urged a fine against the criminal defendants in this case.

Three defendants convicted of wire fraud in the purchase of 16 properties in Gary were clearly guilty of the crimes, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Friday threw out a restitution order in favor of Bank of America and urged the district court in Hammond to consider fining the defendants instead.

“The bank was reckless,” Judge Richard Posner wrote in United States of America v. Minas Litos and Adrian and Daniela Tartareanu, 16-1384, -1385, 2248, 2249, 2330. The defendants were convicted of wire fraud, and the 7th Circuit affirmed those convictions, but reversed an order that they pay the bank restitution of $893,015, the amount it claimed was lost in the scheme.

The defendants were convicted on wire fraud charges filed in 2012 for a scheme in which home buyers were provided down payment kickbacks from the defendants after mortgages were secured on loan applications that provided false information. The defendants then walked away with the purchase price of the properties. But the 7th Circuit wrote Bank of America didn’t have clean hands, and there was little evidence that the bank would not have made the loans had it know the true source of the down payments — the defendants, not the buyers.

Posner detailed the bank’s dubious mortgage-lending history during the real-estate bubble leading up to the Great Recession, noting for instance one woman to whom the bank issued six mortgages in a 10-day period. Posner noted that District Judge Philip Simon said during sentencing in this case, “Bank of America knew [what] was going on. They’re playing this dance and papering it. Everybody knows it is a sham because no one is assuming any risk. So what’s wrong with saying they’re [of] equal culpability?”

“Indeed,” Posner continued, “and we are puzzled that after saying this the judge awarded Bank of America restitution — and in the exact amount that the government had sought.”

“Restitution for a reckless bank? A dubious remedy indeed — which is not to say that the defendants should be allowed to retain the $893,015. That is stolen money,” he wrote. “We don’t understand why the district judge, given his skepticism concerning the entitlement of Bank of America to an award for its facilitating a massive fraud, did not levy on the defendants a fine of not more than the greater of twice the gross gain or the gross loss caused by an offense from which any of $893,015. 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d) authorizes a fine of not more than the greater of twice the gross gain or the gross loss caused by an offense from which any person either derives pecuniary gain or suffers pecuniary loss.”

The 7th Circuit vacated the restitution order as to the Tartareanus and remanded for full resentencing with the alternative remedy of a heavy fine on the defendants. The panel remanded Litos’ sentencing for the limited purpose of reconsideration of the restitution order with direction to consider whether a fine is possible.

Like this:

In the final analysis there is nothing about the business model that makes sense. Switching servicers and owners is simply not the norm of the industry except in relation to cases in foreclosure. It only makes sense if you assume that they are hiding the truth.

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

So I just responded to a homeowner who, with a little help from us, sent out a QWR and DVL and received a response that was quite revealing. The homeowner was dealing with the usual chorus line of ever-changing servicers and alleged “lenders” (pretender lenders).

*

After YEARS of denying that anyone other than BOA owned the loan they now admit that they are now asserting that Freddie Mac owns the loan, although, despite the QWR and DVL letters, they have never produced a single document that shows that.

*

And after years of denying the involvement, Bayview makes the singular uncomfortable admission that LPS/Blacknight in Jacksonville maintains the system of records for Bayview (along with most everyone else in the “securitization” scheme). I say that means LPS is the servicer. If that opinion is right, then LPS is the servicer for virtually every loan made in the last 15 years. [Remember this is the company who published a menu of services that included the fabrication and forgery of documents]

*

What they don’t say is that LPS (now known as Blacknight) maintained everything from the beginning because the loan didn’t legally exist nor was it ever purchased or acquired by anyone. The debt was and remains owing to institutional investors who don’t know they are owed money from the party who received their money. Neither the creditor nor the debtor know of each other’s identity or existence.

*

So here are some of my responses to the array of documents sent to the homeowner leading one to the inevitable conclusion that they are intended merely to confuse and obfuscate.

Freddie Mac is the owner. When did it become the owner?

Did Freddie Mac approve the modification?

Does Bayview have the right to commit to modification? ON behalf of whom did Bayview approve the modification? Who is bound by the modification agreement?

Servicing changed from BAC—>BOA effective 7/11/11. BAC was the new name of Countrywide. So when did Countrywide get involved and how?

When was servicing changed from BOA (the original pretender lender) to BAC or Countrywide?

Servicing changed from BOA—>Bayview 8/1/15. It would be interesting to learn what other events may have prompted this change of servicer.

What documents exist showing BOA right to service the loan?

What documents exist showing Countrywide right to service the loan?

What documents exist showing BAC right to service the loan?

What documents exist showing Bayview right to service the loan.

Request copies of servicing agreement.

Who was the owner of the loan when the loan was first originated?

Who was the owner of the loan when the servicing of the loan was transferred to Countrywide?

Who was the owner of the loan when the servicing of the loan was transferred to BAC?

Who was the owner of the loan when the servicing of the loan was transferred back to BOA?

Who was the owner of the loan when the servicing of the loan was transferred to Bayview?

Why was I not notified that Freddie Mac has become the owner of the loan? [Suggest letter to Freddie Mac asking if they are the owner and if they are aware there is a modification.]

LPS/Blacknight: I am surprised they admitted it. So the question to them would be (a) are all records concerning my loan maintained by Blacknight and (b) is Blacknight actually my servicer? — Since Bayview says Blacknight has the records you could write to Blacknight and ask where your records are kept and who has access to them.

The other question is if LPS/Blacknight maintains the system of records, what does Bayview do?

11/22/16 statement was prepared by Blacknight? where did they get information from? If there is a credit balance shouldn’t you get the money?

If Freddie Mac is the owner then why did Bayview sign the acknowledgment as lender?

If Bayview is the servicer why doesn’t the acknowledgment say that they are signing on behalf of FreddieMac, the owner?

If Freddie Mac is the owner, why does the modification not state that and why does Bayview sign as and have you sign “in witness whereof, lender and Borrower have executed this agreement.”

Since the modification has supposedly been completed, why hasn’t Freddie Mac or its authorized agent sent a correction to the credit bureaus — with the foreclosure dismissed?

Reuters published an article on the situation late Friday, BofA settles claims of “misleading shareholders about its exposure to risky mortgage securities and its dependence on an electronic mortgage registry known as MERS.”

So, yes, it’s just another settlement for BofA, which is probably really used to this kind of development.

“The bank has spent more than $70 billion since the financial crisis to resolve legal and regulatory matters, including those tied to its purchases of Countrywide in July 2008 and Merrill Lynch & Co six months later,” the article states.

So here are my questions:

Where is BOA getting the money to pay for these settlements, fines and damages?

We have many billions of dollars of reported settlements with “investors.” (and probably a lot more unreported “off-balance sheet” settlements). How are the proceeds of these settlements allocated if the investors are the end parties in interest on the alleged loans and pass through certificates. If they have been paid, is that reflected in the ending balance of individual loans? If not, why not?

If the loan balances have indeed been paid down by “settlements” why is it so difficult to get principal reductions which would only reflect the fact that the creditors have already been made whole or at least partially paid?

If the loans have been paid off in whole or in part, who is getting the excess and why — in the case of foreclosures and simply collections? The way this is playing out it seems that the investors are getting hush money while the banks pursue the huge rewards of getting “recovery” of servicer advances they never paid out of their own money and loan money that they never advanced out of their money or credit.

Have the pass through certificate holders assigned their rights to the banks that pay them settlements? If not, why are the servicers taking most of the proceeds of a foreclosure sale?

The fundamental problem here is that the courts have been loathe to get into the complex world of financial instruments. The courts would rather simplify the matter even if it leads to the wrong result. So let’s simplify in another way. Is it right to allow the perpetrators of a fraud upon investors to reap the benefits of their fraud? Why does the “free house” myth even come in to play when the creditors have been paid and the intermediaries are soaking up everything in sight without expending a dime on the loan origination or the loan acquisition?

And then the real question — on whose behalf are these foreclosures being filed? Is it the empty trust that never operated? Is it the pass through certificate holders in the empty trust that never operated? Or is it the servicers and other conduits and sham corporations and entities who want virtually the entire proceeds of a foreclosure sale?

We are starting to get a peek at the strategy the banks will employ in dealing with notices of rescission. In one case the homeowner sent the notice of BOA, who answered that they received it (one problem solved) and that the new servicer is Ocwen (whose business practices have been the subject of a cease and desist order for failing to comply with prior “settlements” and “consent judgments.”)

The obvious strategy of the banks is to try to raise issues that the foreclosure judge can rule upon, in which the notice of rescission is declared void WITHOUT the required lender lawsuit seeking declaratory relief from the rescission — an absolute 20 day requirement under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). And no matter how much philosophical discussion might ensue, this is precisely why TILA was drafted and passed by Congress and signed into law by the president — all in the wake of the savings and loan scandal that shook the industry in the 1980’s and put over 800 bankers in jail. As the US Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia a couple of weeks ago TILA is specific consumer remedy that must be strictly construed.

When they tell you there is another servicer they are trying to re-start the 20 days to file a lawsuit they don’t want to file containing allegations they don’t want to allege, and requiring proof they cannot satisfy. It won’t work. So far, so good. They will probably try to say you sent it to the wrong “servicer” and that therefore your notice of rescission was invalid.

The foreclosure judge will be inclined to accept any argument against the effect of rescission. But TILA is very specific, it is Federal law, and the CFPB regulations under Dodd-Frank make it pretty clear that the shell game won’t work with respect to the notice of rescission. AND their response corroborates your position that they have been continually withholding the information that should have been disclosed at the fake loan closing.

According to CFPB regulations they are all servicers and they are all “good” for service of the rescission letter. You COULD send a COPY of the letter you sent to BOA to Ocwen Certified, return receipt requested. My suggestion is do not send a brand new letter. The clock is ticking. After 20 days has passed we will move to dismiss on the basis of the rescission. The so-called “old servicer” has an obligation to forward the letter to the lender and any other servicers. The 20 days, in my opinion, keeps running from the date of the mailing of the notice.

The long and short of it is that once the notice of rescission is sent (certified mail, return receipt requested) you are now in process on this strategy. The best is that (a) they won’t respond at all which your lawyer can argue they waived the defenses because of the statute of limitations contained in the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for failing to file the required lawsuit within 20 days or (b) they will write back threatening something, which is not the response called for by TILA or (c) they will bring a lawsuit to declare your rescission void. No matter how this turns out I see it as being potentially beneficial to the homeowner.

If they sue then they need to establish standing and allege facts that they are not being required to allege and prove in foreclosure actions. They have been fighting against being required to plead or prove those facts for 10 years. So we can safely assume they can’t allege those thing and they certainly can’t prove those things.

By “those things” I mean ownership and balance. They have to allege they are the lender or they are representing a lender and SHOW that authorization. Contrary to foreclosure actions where courts have been incorrectly ruling that they only need to prove they are holding the paper, the Declaratory action that must be filed to counter your notice of rescission must allege and prove the identity of the “lender” (i.e., the party who loaned you the money or a true successor — i.e., a successor who actually purchased the debt and wasn’t simply a naked recipient of the the bogus paperwork).

Either way you are

(a) going to get rid of the mortgage and note and you will receive a ton of money just for what you paid the pretender lender at closing or the transferees of the bogus paper — which means that you cancel the note, void the mortgage so it is no longer in your chain of title — AND a receive a ton of money for the payments you made for interest and principal on a monthly basis going back to the inception of the fake loan closing, AND/OR

(b) going to get a ton of information that the foreclosure court might not otherwise allow you to reach in discovery (request for admissions, interrogatories, request to produce, depositions) .

My guess is that they are not ready to file any such lawsuit and will try arguing to the foreclosure judge that they didn’t need to because the rescission letter was defective on its face — usually the statute of limitations or the failure “to identify the violations in the letter.”

On that last point, there is no doubt in virtually all cases across the board that the notice letter need only state your rescission. Any reason for the rescission becomes a question of fact later only if the “lender” challenges the rescission letter within the 20 day period.

As to the statute of limitations, it doesn’t apply if the “lender” withheld the information that should have been disclosed. THAT is a question of fact, and THAT too must be brought up in their lawsuit (which is the ONLY way to comply with TILA on a TILA rescission).

But they will try to lure the state court judges into ruling on the sufficiency of the notice of rescission. The state court judge will be tempted to do it because he or she will see that the house is about to become free of the of the mortgage and that the lender will owe money to the borrower — two results the judges still dislike.

That strategy might work a few times but it won’t work long, in my opinion. TILA is a specific, explicit statutory remedy that cannot be interpreted in the context of common law rescission or any other rescission for that matter. The Court is required to treat these “lender” arguments (and even the question of whether the presenting party is in fact a “lender’) as a question of fact that MUST be raised in a separate lender collateral action seeking declaratory relief in a separate lawsuit.

It should come as no surprise that Judges have been confused since the dawning of the mortgage crisis launched by Wall Street. Wall Street was counting on it. And the problem they are having is that most courts, including appellate courts, are presuming the loans existed in the first place. You can’t blame for that because nearly everyone still makes that presumption. How could it not be true? What do you mean the loan came from someone else? Then why didn’t that third person make sure they were made the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage? The real lenders didn’t know about the loan and would never have approved it? Preposterous!

Yes, I concede it all sounds like nonsense. But here is something that does NOT sound like nonsense. If the loan actually existed (between the named payee on the note and the named mortgagee or beneficiary on the mortgage) there is no circumstances under which a lawyer for the “lender” or “investor” would withhold proof of that transaction to the borrower, the Court or anyone else that was entitled to that information. If they had proof of payment on the loan they would rush to show it. If they had proof of payment on the alleged purchase of the loan, they would rush to show it — because that would make them a holder in due course (where the borrower has virtually no defenses).

The problem is that with the shell game of plaintiffs, servicers and trustees, Judges are getting distracted as they start picking at the foreclosure actions and entering some judgments in favor of the homeowners but failing to even consider the possibility that the entire scheme is fraudulent. Instead we see articles like the one below where the paperwork is considered “botched.” It isn’t botched. It is part of a fraudulent scheme. Look for any case where the underlying monetary transaction has been shown or proven. It isn’t there. 6-7 million foreclosures and still no money changing hands. What lender would endorse a note and assign a mortgage without receiving payment for it? (Unless of course they didn’t pay anything either at the loan closing table).

And why would anyone endorse a note or assign a mortgage without a sale of the loan and without receiving payment for it? The answer is very clear. They wouldn’t.

But the Courts are starting with the premise that the loan, and the transfer of the loan is presumptively legal and valid. And part of that presumption starts with the wrong question in the minds of judges — why would anyone file a foreclosure action if they were not the injured party whose legitimate interests were abridged when the borrower stopped paying? That slippery slope leads them to ratify unsigned, robo-signed, fabricated, forged paperwork in the belief that it really doesn’t matter how much is wrong with the paperwork.

Judges still assume that the underlying transactions must be real; hence judgment for the homeowner is necessary to avoid a windfall. It is circular reasoning to assume that the claim must be true if it was filed — that is what our constitution is all about preventing.

Will botched paperwork affect the outcome of foreclosure appeals? It depends on the judges.

The decisions in three cases came down to paperwork and procedure Wednesday before the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

For BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, botched documentation at the height of the robo-signing scandal cost it a foreclosure judgment when the court ruled the lender failed to prove standing to sue homeowner Rosanie Joseph.

The appeals court reversed a foreclosure judgment issued by Palm Beach Circuit Judge Diana Lewis since there was no evidence to show Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. owned the mortgage when filing to foreclose on Joseph in July 2009.

The 2008 mortgage issued by Key Mortgage Associates was attached to the lawsuit, but no note or assignments accompanied the filing by Ocala-based Taylor Bean, a leading wholesale mortgage lender. The company reported the note was lost or stolen.

Taylor Bean, one of the spectacular bankruptcies of the housing crash, later assigned the note to BAC, which picked up the foreclosure ball.

In trial, BAC produced the original note and mortgage. The note offered two endorsements by the same person, Erica Carter-Shaw as a Key Mortgage attorney and Taylor Bean “E.V.P.” Neither endorsement was dated.

“A party must establish its standing to bring a mortgage foreclosure complaint by establishing an assignment or equitable transfer of the note and mortgage prior to instituting the complaint,” Judge Martha Warner wrote for the unanimous panel. Judges Carole Taylor and Mark Klingensmith concurred.

No File Review

A different panel split in similar litigation: Gafoor Jaffer and Nina Jaffer v. Chase Home Finance.

The homeowners claimed Chase attached a mortgage note payable to a third party without any proof of transfer and used an amended foreclosure complaint that failed to state a cause of action. However, the Jaffers waived the question of Chase’s standing by failing to respond to the lawsuit before default was entered.

Chase conceded some of its employees signed affidavits about the loan documents without first reviewing the loan file.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. wasn’t as lucky when it moved to overturn Broward Circuit Judge Kathleen Ireland’s ruling in favor of homeowner Theresa Boglioli.

Attorneys say the decisions may further complicate already-lengthy and expensive foreclosure litigation.

“Normally you see discrepancies of this nature within different circuits. But what we’re seeing in the Fourth is discrepancies among themselves,” said foreclosure defense attorney Roy Oppenheim of Weston. “It just makes this more complex. When there is cloudiness, it just creates more ambiguity and delays the conclusion of the foreclosure mess. In the end it doesn’t help anybody when you have inconsistent rules.”

“The judges themselves are coming up with different rationale based on the same facts, which makes for wildly different outcomes.”

For more information on foreclosure offense, expert witness consultations and foreclosure defense please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We offer litigation support in all 50 states to attorneys. We refer new clients without a referral fee or co-counsel fee unless we are retained for litigation support. Bankruptcy lawyers take note: Don’t be too quick admit the loan exists nor that a default occurred and especially don’t admit the loan is secured. FREE INFORMATION, ARTICLES AND FORMS CAN BE FOUND ON LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOG. Consultations available by appointment in person, by Skype and by phone.

————————————

BONY/Mellon is among those who are attempting to use a Power of Attorney (POA) that they say proves their ownership of the note and mortgage. In No way does it prove ownership. But it almost forces the reader to assume ownership. But it is not entitled to a presumption of any kind. This is a document prepared for use in litigation and in no way is part of normal business records. They should be required to prove every word and every exhibit. The ONLY thing that would prove ownership is proof of payment. If they owned it they would be claiming HDC status. Not only doesn’t it PROVE ownership, it doesn’t even recite or warrant ownership, indemnification etc. It is a crazy document in substance but facially appealing even though it doesn’t really say anything.

The entire POA is hearsay, lacks foundation, and is irrelevant without the proper foundation be laid by the proponent of the document. I do not think it can be introduced as a business records exception since such documents are not normally created in the ordinary course of business especially with such wide sweeping powers that make no sense — unless you recognize that they are dealing with worthless paper that they are trying desperately to make valuable.

They should have given you a copy of the settlement agreement referred to in the POA and they should have identified the original PSA that is referred to in the settlement agreement. Those are the foundation documents because the POA says that the terms used are defined in the PSA, Settlement agreement or both. I want all documents that are incorporated by reference in the POA.

If you have asked whether the Trust ever paid for your loan, I would like to see their answer.

If CWALT, Inc. or CWABS, Inc., or CWMBS, Inc is anywhere in your chain of title or anywhere else mentioned in any alleged origination or transfer of your loan, I assume you asked for those and I would like to see them too.

The PSA requires that the Trust pay for and receive the loan documents by way of the depositor and custodian. The Trustee never takes possession of the loan documents. But more than that it is important to distinguish between the loan documents and the debt. If there is no debt between you and the originator (which means that the originator named on the note and mortgage never advanced you any money for the loan) then note, which is only evidence of the debt and allegedly containing the terms of repayment is only evidence of the debt — which we know does not exist if they never answered your requests for proof of payment, wire transfer or canceled check.

If you have been reading my posts the last couple of weeks you will see what I am talking about.

The POA does not warrant or even recite that YOUR loan or anything resembling control or ownership of YOUR LOAN is or was ever owned by BONY/Mellon or the alleged trust. It is a classic case of misdirection. By executing a long and very important-looking document they want the judge to presume that the recitations are true and that the unrecited assumptions are also true. None of that is correct. The reference to the PSA only shows intent to acquire loans but has no reference or exhibit identifying your loan. And even if there was such a reference or exhibit it would be fabricated and false — there being obvious evidence that they did not pay for it or any other loan.

The evidence that they did not pay consists of a lot of things but once piece of logic is irrefutable — if they were a holder in due course you would be left with no defenses. If they are not a holder in due course then they had no right to collect money from you and you might sue to get your payments back with interest, attorney fees and possibly punitive damages unless they turned over all your money to the real creditors — but that would require them to identify your real creditors (the investors who thought they were buying mortgage bonds but whose money was never given to the Trust but was instead used privately by the securities broker that did the underwriting on the bond offering).

And the main logical point for an assumption is that if they were a holder in due course they would have said so and you would be fighting with an empty gun except for predatory and improper lending practices at the loan closing which cannot be brought against the Trust and must be directed at the mortgage broker and “originator.” They have not alleged they are a holder in course.

The elements of holder in dude course are purchase for value, delivery of the loan documents, in good faith without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. If they had paid for the loan documents they would have been more than happy to show that they did and then claim holder in due course status. The fact that the documents were not delivered in the manner set forth in the PSA — tot he depositor and custodian — is important but not likely to swing the Judge your way. If they paid they are a holder in due course.

The trust could not possibly be attacked successfully as lacking good faith or knowing the borrower’s defenses, so two out of four elements of HDC they already have. Their claim of delivery might be dubious but is not likely to convince a judge to nullify the mortgage or prevent its enforcement. Delivery will be presumed if they show up with what appears to be the original note and mortgage. So that means 3 out of the four elements of HDC status are satisfied by the Trust. The only remaining question is whether they ever entered into a transaction in which they originated or acquired any loans and whether yours was one of them.

Since they have not alleged HDC status, they are admitting they never paid for it. That means the Trust is admitting there was no payment, which means they were not entitled to delivery or ownership of the note, mortgage, or debt.

So that means they NEVER OWNED THE DEBT OR THE LOAN DOCUMENTS. AS A HOLDER IN COURSE IT WOULD NOT MATTER IF THEY OWNED THE DEBT — THE LOAN DOCUMENTS ARE ENFORCEABLE BY A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE EVEN IF THERE IS NO DEBT. THE RISK OF LOSS TO ANY PERSON WHO SIGNS A NOTE AND MORTGAGE AND ALLOWS IT TO BE TAKEN OUT OF HIS OR HER POSSESSION IS ON THE PARTY WHO TOOK IT AND THE PARTY WHO SIGNED IT — IF THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION, THE DOCUMENTS ARE ONLY SUCCESSFULLY ENFORCED WHERE AN INNOCENT PARTY PAYS REAL VALUE AND TAKES DELIVERY OF THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE IN GOOD FAITH WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE BORROWER’S DEFENSES.

So if they did not allege they are an HDC then they are admitting they don’t own the loan papers and admitting they don’t own the loan. Since the business of the trust was to pay for origination of loans and acquisition of loans there is only one reason they wouldn’t have paid for the loan — to wit: the trust didn’t have the money. There is only one reason the trust would not have the money — they didn’t get the proceeds of the sale of the bonds. If the trust did not get the proceeds of sale of the bonds, then the trust was completely ignored in actual conduct regardless of what the documents say. Which means that the documents are not relevant to the power or authority of the servicer, master servicer, trust, or even the investors as TRUST BENEFICIARIES.

It means that the investors’ money was used directly for fees of multiple people who were not disclosed in your loan closing, and some portion of which was used to fund your loan. THAT MEANS the investors have no claim as trust beneficiaries. Their only claim is as owner of the debt, not the loan documents which were made out in favor of people other than the investors. And that means that there is no basis to claim any power, authority or rights claimed through “Securitization” (dubbed “securitization fail” by Adam Levitin).

This in turn means that the investors are owners of the debt but lack any documentation with which to enforce the debt. That doesn’t mean they can’t enforce the debt, but it does mean they can’t use the loan documents. Once they prove or you admit that you did get the loan and that the money came from them, they are entitled to a money judgment on the debt — but there is no right to foreclose because the deed of trust, like a mortgage, is made out to another party and the investors were never included in the chain of title because the intermediaries were making money keeping it from the investors. More importantly the “other party” had no risk, made no money advance and was otherwise simply providing an illegal service to disguise a table funded loan that is “predatory per se” as per REG Z.

And THAT is why the originator received no money from successors in most cases — they didn’t ask for any money because the loan had cost them nothing and they received a fee for their services.

‘The bottom line is that the notice of substitution of Plaintiff in judicial states, or notice of substitution of Trustee in non-judicial states should be the first line of battle. Neither one of them is valid and in both cases you have a stranger to the transaction being allowed to name itself as creditor, name its own controlled entity or subsidiary as trustee, and then ignore the realities of the money paid to the real creditor. They are claiming damages from the borrower — all for a debt that in the ordinary course of things has already been paid several times over. But it is true that it wasn’t paid to THEM because THEY were never and are not now the creditor fulfilling the definition of a creditor who could bid at the foreclosure auction. It is not that the borrower doesn’t owe money when he borrows it, it is that he doesn’t owe it to any of the people who are claiming it. And that is what gives rise to liability of law firms to borrowers.” Neil F Garfield, http://www.livinglies.me

If our information can be corroborated through discovery with a corporate representative of US BANK or Chase Bank as the servicer, it is possible that a solid cause of action can be filed against the law firm that brought the action, particularly if the law firm took its instructions from the Desktop system of LPS.

In that system law firms are instructed to file foreclosures without contact with the actual client. We saw several cases where sanctions were levied against lawyers and their alleged clients, but none so stark as the one in Florida where the lawyer for US Bank as Trustee for XXX, when faced with questions he couldn’t answer admitted that he had never spoken with anyone from U.S> Bank and didn’t know who had retained his firm.

The law firm that brought the foreclosure action and especially the law firm that is demanding an assignment of rent to protect a creditor who has already been paid through non stop servicer advances was most likely not authorized to demand the assignment of rents which might be why there was no written demand as required by statute. I am considering the possibility of an actual lawsuit against one such law firm for interference with contract on both the foreclosure and the assignment of rents issue.

The Banks are being very cagey about this system — one which they would never use for their own portfolio loans, which begs the question of why they would have two entirely different system of accounting and legal process. But the long and the short of it is that LPS in Jacksonville, Florida is used much the same way as MERS. It maintains a database service that requires a user name and password and that gives unlimited access to the client folders. Anyone can go in and authorize the foreclosure based upon a default that is invested by the person entering the data. They leave out any servicer advances or other third party payments and arrive at an amount to reinstate that is just plain wrong. So virtually all notices of default are wrong which means that the required notice is defective.

You should know that many judges appear unimpressed that there was no valid assignment of the mortgage. I think that it is clearly reversible error. The assignment frequently is clearly fabricated and back-dated because of references to events that happened a year after the assignment was executed. The assignment clearly did not exist at the time of the lawsuit and the standing issue is clear under Florida law although some courts are balking at the idea that standing cannot be cured after the lawsuit. The reasoning is quite simple — if it were otherwise, you could file suit against a grocery store for a slip and fall, and the go over to the store to have your slip and fall.

In one of my cases involving multiple properties, they have an assignment that was prepared and executed by Shapiro and Fishman supposedly dated in 2007 —- but it refers to Bank of America as successor by merger to LaSalle. it is backdated, fabricated and fictional, which is to say, fraudulent.

The assignment has two problems –— FACIALLY DEFECTIVE FABRICATION OF ASSIGNMENT: the first problem is that the alleged BOA merger with LaSalle could not have happened before 2008 — one year after the assignment was executed. So the 2007 assignment refers to a future event that was not reported by BOA until 2008, and was not approved by the Federal Reserve until 2008. On its face, then, based upon public record, the assignment is void as a total fabrication.

The second problem is that it is unclear as to how the merger could have occurred between BOA and La Salle, to wit:. you might need to read this a few times to understand the complexity of the issues involved — issues that few judges or lawyers are interested enough to master.
LASALLE ABN AMRO ACQUISITION: Since neither entity vanished in the deal it is an acquisition and not a merger. LaSalle and ABN AMRO did a reverse merger in 2007.

That means that while LASalle was technically the acquirer, because it “bought” ABN AMRO, and ABN AMRO became a subsidiary — the reality is that LaSalle issued so many shares for the acquisition of ABN AMRO that the ABN AMRO shareholders received the overwhelming majority of LaSalle Shares compared to the former owners of LaSalle shares.

Hence in substance LaSalle Bank was a subsidiary of ABN AMRO and the consolidated financial statements show it. But in form it appears as the parent.

So if someone, like BOA, was to say they merged with or acquired LaSalle, they would also be saying that included its subsidiary ABN AMRO — and they would have to do the deal with the shareholders of ABN AMRO because those shareholders control LaSalle Bank, which brings us to CitiGroup —-

CITIGROUP MERGER WITH ABN AMRO: Also in 2007, CitiGroup announced and continues to file sworn statements with the SEC that it had merged with ABN AMRO, which means, if you followed the above, that CitiGroup actually owned LaSalle. It looks more like an acquisition than a merger to me but the wording makes it unclear. This would mean that LaSalle still technically exists as a subsidiary of CitiGroup.

ALLEGED BOA MERGER WITH LASALLE: In 2008 the Federal Reserve issued an order approving the merger of BOA and LaSalle, in which case LaSalle vanishes — but ABN AMRO is the one with all the assets. BUT LaSalle is named as Trustee of the asset pool. And the only other allowable trustee would be another bank that merged with LaSalle as a successor without the requirement of filing more papers to be a Trustee and BOA clearly qualifies on all counts for that. Section 8.09 of PSA.

But the Federal Reserve order states that the identities of ABN AMRO and LaSalle are the same and the acquisition of one is the acquisition of the other — thus unintentionally ratifying CitiGroup’s apparent position that it owns ABN AMRO and thus LaSalle.

Findings of fact by an administrative agency are presumptively true although subject to rebuttal.

Here is the kicker: there is no further mention in any SEC filings of a merger between BOA and LaSalle, unless I missed it. There is no reference to the fact that CitiGroup controlled LaSalle and ABN AMRO at the time of the Federal Reserve order approving the BOA merger with LaSalle Bank in 2008.

CitiGroup has not, to my knowledge ever reported the sale or loss or merger of LaSalle. Since Citi made the acquisition before BOA, and since BOA apparently did not buy LaSalle from Citi, how could BOA claim to be a successor by merger with LaSalle?

Hence there are questions of fact as to whether BOA ever consummated any transaction in which it acquired or Merged with LaSalle, which while technically possible, makes no business sense.UNLESS the OBJECTIVE was to transfer the interest of LaSalle as trustee to BOA, as a precursor to a much wider deal in which BOA then sold its position as Trustee to US Bank as a commodity and then filed in the Kalam cases a notice of substitution of Plaintiff without amending the pleadings.

US BANK Notice of Substitution of Plaintiff without Any Motion to Amend Pleadings: The reason they filed it as a notice was that they obviously did not want to allege the purchase of “being a trustee”, which would have been a contested issue in the pleadings. But the amendment is required in my opinion and there should be a motion to strike the notice of substitution of Plaintiff without amendment. The motion to strike should state that no objection to granting the order to amend, but that the circumstances should be pled and we should be able to respond with a denial and affirmative defenses if you choose.